Third, "Three Strikes" laws will cause difficulty in the courts. The criminal courts already suffer from serious issues. The extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs" have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse. Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand costly and time-consuming trials rather than submit to plea-bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to defend, while a full-blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000. Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public defenders, the expense of their defense will be borne by taxpayers.
Fourth, "Three Strikes" laws will take all sentencing discretion away from
judges. The "Three Strikes" proposals differ from most habitual offender laws in that they make life sentences without parole mandatory. Thus, they tie the hands of judges who have traditionally been responsible for weighing both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before imposing sentence. Judicial discretion in sentencing, which is admired all over the world for treating people as individuals, is one of the hallmarks of our justice system. But the rigid formula imposed by "Three Strikes" renders the role of sentencing judges almost unnecessary. Also, eliminating the possibility of parole ignores the fact that even the most incorrigible offenders can be transformed while in prison. Countless examples are on record of convicts who have reformed themselves through study, good works, religious conversion or other efforts during years spent behind bars. Such people ought deserve a second chance that "Three Strikes" laws make impossible.
Fifth, the cost of imprisoning three-time offenders for life will be excessively high. The passage of "Three Strikes" laws will lead to a significant increase in the nation's already swollen prison population, at enormous cost to taxpayers. Today, it costs about $20,000 per year to confine a young, physically fit offender. But "Three Strikes" laws would create a huge, geriatric prison population that would be far more expensive to care for. The estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is three times that required for a younger prisoner--about $60,000 per year. The cost might be worth it if older prisoners represented a danger to society. But experts tell us that age is the most powerful crime reducer. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and 24. Only one percent of all serious crimes are committed by people over age 60.
Sixth, “Three Strikes" will have a disproportionate impact on minority
offenders. Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African American men, in particular, are over represented in all criminal justice statistics-- arrests, victimizations, incarceration and executions. This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs." Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug charges. This is because the police find it easier to concentrate their forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or parole. Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes," more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences under a "Three Strikes" law.
Seventh, ‘Three Strikes" laws will impose life sentences on offenders whose crimes do not warrant such harsh punishment. Although "Three Strikes" sponsors claim that their purpose is to protect society from only the most dangerous felons, many of the "Three Strikes" proposals encompass a broad range of criminal conduct, from rape to minor assaults. In an open letter to the Washington State voters, more than 20 current and former prosecutors urged the public to vote against the "Three Strikes" proposal. To explain why they opposed the law's passage, they described the following scenario: "An 18-year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers--Strike One; he gets out of jail and shoplifts a jacket from the Bon Marche, pushing aside the clerk as he runs out of the store--Strike Two; he gets out of jail, straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose--criminal behavior, to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life."
Finally, let the punishment fit the crime through a constitutional principle.
Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses, even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as "proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Many of the "Three Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft. Such laws offend our constitutional traditions.
On the other hand, however, many people know that the American public is alarmed about crime, and with good reason. Our crime rate is unacceptably high, and many Americans feel like prisoners in their own homes, afraid to venture out for fear of becoming another statistic. Two main reasons exist in support of enforcing the “Three Strikes, You’re Out” legislation.
First, “Three Strikes" laws will help deter most violent crimes. Its supporters claim that "Three Strikes" laws will have a deterrent effect on violent crime. It is stated that these laws will probably stop many criminals from committing violent acts. Most violent crimes are premeditated, so offenders will always be aware of and have the knowledge of the “Three Strikes” law’s punishment. The prospect of a life sentence is going to stop people who are acting criminally, with thought to the likely consequences of their actions. Another reason why repeat offenders consider the penalties they face before acting is because sometimes they anticipate being caught by authorities. According to the American Bar Association, even though out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests.
Secondly, “Three Strikes" laws are a serious response to crime. The "Three Strikes" proposals are apparently based on the belief that focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime rate. Currently, If 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, statistics should drastically change. Serious crimes that are committed will most likely decrease because offenders will think twice about the consequences of the “Three Strikes” law.
In conclusion, I am still in support of opposing the “Three Strikes, You’re Out” law that has been quite a large argument in the past few years. I feel that my beliefs are a better advocated debate than opposite side. We cannot enforce such a strict law because the changes that follow it will have too much of a negative impact on the correctional operations of the criminal justice system. Today, the U.S. has the dubious distinction of leading the industrialized world in per capital prison population, with more than one million men and women behind bars. The typical inmate in our prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40 percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of hope. Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to realize a less crime ridden society.
